Mark Steyn: Mideast Instability? Bring it On!

The Jerusalem Post ^ | April 21, 2004 | Mark Steyn

[quidnunc]

In the summer of 2002, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, issued a stern warning to the BBC: a US invasion of Iraq would "threaten the whole stability of the Middle East." As I wrote at the time, "He's missing the point: that's the reason it's such a great idea."

I thought about Mr. Moussa a lot this past week. I was invited to speak at the United States Naval Academy's foreign affairs conference, a great honor for a foreigner. I wasn't the star attraction — that was Condoleezza Rice; I was merely a warm-up act.

Anyway, I was struck by a phrase in Dr. Rice's address that I don't believe I've heard her use before. She was talking about the fourth plane on September 11th, Flight 93, the one that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania en route to destroy either the Capitol or the White House. If it had reached the latter, that would have been the "money shot" that day, as it was in the alien-invasion flick Independence Day — the center of American power reduced to rubble. What happened on 9/11, said Rice, was an attempt to "decapitate us." If not for quirks of flight scheduling and al-Qaida personnel management, the headlines would have included "The Vice-President is still among the missing, presumed dead" or — if they'd got really lucky — that the presidency had passed to the president pro tem of the Senate, octogenarian West Virginia Democrat, porkmeister and former Klansman Robert Byrd.

In other words, if you're wondering why this administration's approach to terrorism is so focused on regime change, it's because the terrorists came so close to changing America's regime.

-snip-

[Democratshavenobrains]

Unfortunately, these Hamas bigshots are what constitute the leadership braintrust of the Palestinians. As soon as they are ready to accept defeat, so will their suicide bomber followers.

[68skylark]

One day Isreal will get a Hamas leader who is ready to make peace -- it's just a simple process of elimination!

[eddiespaghetti]

I dont think Flight 93 would have made it to Washington D.C. An F16 was right near it.

Where can one get info about that?

[Dog Gone]

I've got an idea. Since you're afraid to post full text Steyn articles because you fear getting sued, why don't you ping or Freepmail me when you find one? I'll post it, and you'll be off the hook.

You'll also quit pissing off 99% of Freepers with your excerpts.

[Eurotwit]

Thanks for the ping...

I remember an Economist editorial before the war who made exactly the same point: The whole idea is to destabilize the mid east. The staus quo sucked.

Cheers.

[Rummyfan]

In the summer of 2002, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, issued a stern warning to the BBC: a US invasion of Iraq would "threaten the whole stability of the Middle East." As I wrote at the time, "He's missing the point: that's the reason it's such a great idea."

Advertisement


I thought about Mr. Moussa a lot this past week. I was invited to speak at the United States Naval Academy's foreign affairs conference, a great honor for a foreigner. I wasn't the star attraction – that was Condoleezza Rice; I was merely a warm-up act.

Anyway, I was struck by a phrase in Dr. Rice's address that I don't believe I've heard her use before. She was talking about the fourth plane on September 11th, Flight 93, the one that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania en route to destroy either the Capitol or the White House. If it had reached the latter, that would have been the "money shot" that day, as it was in the alien-invasion flick Independence Day – the center of American power reduced to rubble. What happened on 9/11, said Rice, was an attempt to "decapitate us." If not for quirks of flight scheduling and al-Qaida personnel management, the headlines would have included "The Vice-President is still among the missing, presumed dead" or – if they'd got really lucky – that the presidency had passed to the president pro tem of the Senate, octogenarian West Virginia Democrat, porkmeister and former Klansman Robert Byrd.

In other words, if you're wondering why this administration's approach to terrorism is so focused on regime change, it's because the terrorists came so close to changing America's regime.

They've since managed to change Spain's. So why should the traffic be all one way? About two weeks after 9/11, I came to the conclusion that almost anything was better than Moussa's much-vaunted "stability." The fetishization of stability was a big part of the problem. Falling for the Moussa line would give us another 25 years of the ayatollahs, another 35 years of the PLO and Hamas, another 40 of the Ba'athists in Syria and Iraq, another 70 of Saudi Wahhabism. Even another 20 years of Mubarak doesn't have anything to commend it. All stability means is that the most malign Middle Eastern tyranny – Saudi Arabia – has wound up being the wealthiest and thus is able to export its toxins around the world, via the madrassas it has built in Pakistan, South Asia, the Balkans, and North America.

WASHINGTON APPARENTLY reached the same conclusion – that anything was better than the status quo. Or, as Thomas Friedman put it in The New York Times this weekend, "President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air."

That's why Moussa is so discombobulated. The Arab League (set up in a typically devious move by the British which, just as typically, backfired on them) was the preeminent body of regional stability. Its most recent meeting, scheduled to be held in Tunis, had to be scrapped because of irreconcilable divisions between the old-school thug regimes and the more enlightened members who wanted better relations with America and Britain.

Now it's the EU Arafatists' turn to be discombobulated. In supporting Ariel Sharon's planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, President Bush said last week it was time to recognize "realities on the ground" and "unrealistic" to expect a return to the armistice lines of 1949.

What this means is that, after half a century of formal neutrality on the issue, the US has stated the obvious: The "sensitive issue" of the Palestinian "right of return" is sensitive mainly because it's a lot of hooey that's never going to happen.

Tough, but that's the reality on the ground. There is no point entering into negotiations predicated on not disturbing the fantasies of one side.

I've never been to Gaza, but I have mooched around the West Bank and, compared to such nascent nations as Slovenia or East Timor, it's all but impossible to detect evidence of any plausible nationalist movement. Everywhere you go, you see the glorification of the martyrdom movement and the Jew-killing movement, and evidently those are such a hit that Palestinian nationalism has withered in their wake, except insofar as when all the Jews are gone, what's left will by default be Palestinian.

Ariel Sharon has decided that one cannot negotiate with a void, a nullity – and even sentimental European Yasserphiles might, in their more honest moments, acknowledge that the only way the Palestinians are ever going to get a state is if they're cut out of the process. So the Israelis are building their wall, and what's left over on the other side will either be a new state, the present decayed Arafatist squat, or an ever more frustrated self-detonation academy. But it will be up to the Palestinians to choose because they'll be the ones living with the consequences.

BUSH HAS gone along with Sharon because it accords with his post-9/11 assessment of the Middle East: The biggest gamble can't be worse than Moussa's stability. Indeed, the Israeli government's new Hamas Assassination-of-the-Month program usefully clarifies the bottom line: A high rotation of thugs is better than the same thug decade in, decade out. Poor Rantissi, killed this weekend, seems unlikely to get the glowing send-off from European obituarists they gave to his predecessor, the "revered quadriplegic spiritual leader," Sheikh Yassin. Already, bigshot terrorists in Gaza are said to be reconsidering their applications for next month's vacancy.

That's the bottom line elsewhere, too. If all else fails, then a modified Sam Goldwyn philosophy will do: I'm sick of the old despots, bring me some new despots.

But it won't come to that. In Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, the old Middle East is dying, and what replaces it can only be better.

[Rummyfan]

Ping!

[NonValueAdded]

Oh dear Lord ... another fascinating Steyn article sullied by lots of kvetching about quid posting an excerpt. Some of the complainers even note that quid is notorious for posting excerpts. HELLO quit your griping and post your own full copy if you wish. Get a free email account on Yahoo! or even the new Google, use it for your signups, turn on the spam filter, and never bother to check the inbox again.

OR ... are you Communists? That's right ... communists. Believers in the old "from each according to his ability to each according to their need" crapola. Steyn certainly has the ability, do you begrudge him the clicks and hits to fund the payment for his brilliance? Is your "need" to view his work for free?

Your click helps the publisher make some money that partially goes to pay Mark Steyn's fee and the hit count lets the publisher know that Mark Steyn is worthy of whatever he charges (and quite frankly should be one of the highest paid columnists going given his consistent brilliance!!!).

So there you go ... shot out ... add 50 and fire for effect. I've reposted this commentary in chat here: Mark Steyn: to excerpt or not to excerpt so fire up your flamethrowers and join me over there and stop sullying up another Steyn gem.

[Rummyfan]

Bump! Bump!

Truly, happiness is reading Mark Steyn on Free Republic!

The "sensitive issue" of the Palestinian "right of return" is sensitive mainly because it's a lot of hooey that's never going to happen.

Love it!

[Rummyfan]

Ok Ok! I signed up and posted it in full! For Steyn it is worth it!

[LadyDoc]

I dont think Flight 93 would have made it to Washington D.C. An F16 was right near it. It would have shot it down, before the plane reached D.C

I think Condi was pointing out that if the flight had been scheduled earlier, and was the first plane to hit, then there would have been no capitol...heck, you can see the Capitol building from the Penatagon...it's just not that far away. If the plane with Barbara Olsen had hit the Capitol instead of the Pentagon, most of Congress could have been killed, since there was little warning...instead, thank the Lord, it hit the side of the Pentagon that was being renovated and being made bomb proof, and so it was still half empty.

I visited there a couple weeks ago. My son in law pointed out the side that was new...they fixed it so you couldn't tell the difference. They didn't want to "honor" the terrorists by leaving a scar.

Three cheers for the workmen who fixed the place...wish they could do the same with the twin towers.

[Rummyfan]

If not for quirks of flight scheduling and al-Qaida personnel management, the headlines would have included "The Vice-President is still among the missing, presumed dead" or – if they'd got really lucky – that the presidency had passed to the president pro tem of the Senate, octogenarian West Virginia Democrat, porkmeister and former Klansman Robert Byrd.

Talk about a nightmare!

[Miss Marple]

I don't mind hitting on a link, although it takes more time. (Lots of Freepers don't have that time, but I do.)

I DO mind it when I am given a link and I have to register. That is extremely annoying.

[quidnunc]

Miss Marple wrote: I don't mind hitting on a link, although it takes more time. (Lots of Freepers don't have that time, but I do.) I DO mind it when I am given a link and I have to register. That is extremely annoying.

As Jimmy Durante used to say "Them are the conditions that prevails".

I find the stuff and post excerpts with links, which takes considerable time and effort.

If people don't want to avail themselves of the opportunity to read the articles then they're no worse off than they would have been if they never knew the article existed in the first place.

[Miss Marple]

It seems to me that there are ways to circumvent the registration. One would be to supply us with YOUR registration name and password.

You apparently are unwilling to do so. I can go read the Jerusalem Post on my own, of course. That is not the point.

I understand your position on excerpting, although I disagree. But if you are determined to do it your way, you could at least make it a bit easier for those of us who, like me, haven't griped at you about this. You are not helping your cause with your attitude.

If you are "doing Jim a favor" by supposedly protecting him from lawsuits, then supplying a name and password shouldn't be a problem for you.

On the other hand, if your mission is to muck up Steyn's writings, one of the most popular on FR, then you are doing a good job of it.

I don't know your motives, but I suggest that a registration name and password would be a nice thing to provide.

[bwteim]

Thanks for the heads up.


The http://bugmenot.com/ site works like a charm. Just tried it on a site requiring the whole nine yards but bypassed it with one of their userids and passwords.

[quidnunc]

Miss Marple wrote: It seems to me that there are ways to circumvent the registration. One would be to supply us with YOUR registration name and password.

Give everybody my user name and password for dozens of sites I access, some of them involving transactions like ordering books and stuff using my credit card?

Surely you jest!

[WVNan]

Me too. I went through the ordeal to sign up. Besides I kind of enjoy reading the JP.

[Miss Marple]

No, quit being obtuse. Make up a registration name and password for the Jerusalem Post alone. You know this can be done without compromising your privacy.

You are simply avoiding the topic. WHY not do something like that? What is your motive?

[quidnunc]

Miss Marple wrote: No, quit being obtuse. Make up a registration name and password for the Jerusalem Post alone. You know this can be done without compromising your privacy. You are simply avoiding the topic. WHY not do something like that? What is your motive?

I'll tell you what my motive is not.

It is not to spend a lot of time doing for people who won't do for themselves.

I was not placed on this earth to cater to the whims of a bunch of lazy or paranoid people.

Free Republic is just one of several sites I post on, and I don't post all of the articles in FR that I post elsewhere.

If I post stuff on FR it's because I think some may be interested enough to expend at least a modicum of effort in order inform themselves.

Those who are aggravated by my excerpting need only avoid my threads in order to spare themselves from irritation.